Scott v. Oil Well Supply Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Scott v. Oil Well Supply Co.

1924 OK 219, 223 P. 650, 101 Okla. 99, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 27

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 19, 1924

Docket12813

StatusPublished

This text of 1924 OK 219 (Scott v. Oil Well Supply Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Scott v. Oil Well Supply Co., 1924 OK 219, 223 P. 650, 101 Okla. 99, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 27 (Okla. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

COCHRAN, J.

The defendant in error has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the petition in error was not filed in this court within six months from the date the motion for new trial was overruled. The motion for new trial was overruled on May 13, 1921, and the petition in error was filed in this court on November 12, .1921, and was within the six-months period prescribed by statute. The period of six months prescribed in the statute means calendar months, and not a period of 30 days, or a lunar month. Bertwell v. Haines, 10 Okla. 469, 63 Pac. 702.

The plaintiff in error contends that an excessive verdict was returned in this case on account of erroneous instructions given by the trial court. An examination of the testimony introduced discloses that the various items entering into the judgment rendered are separable and the testimony relative to each in uneontradicted.. It appears that, in addition to the items of credit which were allowed by the jury, the piaintiff in error was entitled to additional *100 credits amounting to $58.75. The judgment should he reduced to $210.31, with interest at the rate of six per cent, from the 16th day of August, '1915, and if the defendant in error will file a remittitur in this court of all in excess of the above amount within ten days, this judgment will stand affirmed; otherwise, it will be reversed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and KENNAMER, HARRISON, and LX 1)1 OK, J.T., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

COCHRAN, J.

The defendant in error has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the petition in error was not filed in this court within six months from the date the motion for new trial was overruled. The motion for new trial was overruled on May 13, 1921, and the petition in error was filed in this court on November 12, .1921, and was within the six-months period prescribed by statute. The period of six months prescribed in the statute means calendar months, and not a period of 30 days, or a lunar month. Bertwell v. Haines, 10 Okla. 469, 63 Pac. 702.

The plaintiff in error contends that an excessive verdict was returned in this case on account of erroneous instructions given by the trial court. An examination of the testimony introduced discloses that the various items entering into the judgment rendered are separable and the testimony relative to each in uneontradicted.. It appears that, in addition to the items of credit which were allowed by the jury, the piaintiff in error was entitled to additional *100 credits amounting to $58.75. The judgment should he reduced to $210.31, with interest at the rate of six per cent, from the 16th day of August, '1915, and if the defendant in error will file a remittitur in this court of all in excess of the above amount within ten days, this judgment will stand affirmed; otherwise, it will be reversed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and KENNAMER, HARRISON, and LX 1)1 OK, J.T., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1924 OK 219, 223 P. 650, 101 Okla. 99, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-oil-well-supply-co-okla-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack